David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 39 (1):109-119 (2008)
In the mid-1990s, the company Human Genome Sciences submitted three potentially revolutionary patent applications to the US Patent and Trademark Office, each of which claimed the entire genome sequence of a microorganism. The patent examiners, however, objected to these applications, and after negotiation they were eventually re-written to resemble more traditional gene patents. In this paper, which is based on a study of the patent examination files, we examine the reasons why these patent applications were unsuccessful in their original form. We show that with respect to utility and novelty, the patent attorney’s case built on an understanding of the genome as a computer-related invention. The patent examiners did not object to the patenting of complete genome sequences as computer-related inventions on moral grounds or in terms of the distinction between a discovery and an invention. Instead, their objections were based on classification, rules and procedure. Rather than patent examiners having a notion of a genome that should not be patented, the notion of a ‘genome’, and the ways in which it may be different from a ‘gene’, played no role in these debates. We discuss the consequences of our findings for patenting in the biosciences
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Paul E. Griffiths (2001). Genetic Information: A Metaphor in Search of a Theory. Philosophy of Science 68 (3):394-412.
Peter Godfrey-Smith (2000). On the Theoretical Role of "Genetic Coding". Philosophy of Science 67 (1):26-44.
M. Blute (2005). If the Genome Isn't a God-Like Ghost in the Machine, Then What is It? Biology and Philosophy 20 (2-3):401-407.
Citations of this work BETA
Hyo Yoon Kang (2012). Science Inside Law: The Making of a New Patent Class in the International Patent Classification. Science in Context 25 (4):551-594.
Similar books and articles
Ruth Chadwick & Sarah Wilson (2004). Genomic Databases as Global Public Goods? Res Publica 10 (2):123-134.
Richard Panek (2004/2005). The Invisible Century: Einstein, Freud, and the Search for Hidden Universes. Fourth Estate.
Miriam Bentwich (2012). It's About Scientific Secrecy, Dummy: A Better Equilibrium Among Genomics Patenting, Scientific Research and Health Care. [REVIEW] Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (2):263-284.
Clem Tisdell (2009). Peter W. B. Phillips and Chika B. Onwuekwe (Eds): Accessing and Sharing the Benefits of the Genomics Revolution. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22 (4):379-382.
Catherine Kendig, Reconstructing the Concept of Homology for Genomics. Pittsburgh/London Colloquium on Philosophy of Biology and Neuroscience, University of London. Online at PhilSci Archive.
Ruth Chadwick (2011). Personal Genomes: No Bad News? Bioethics 25 (2):62-65.
Hub Zwart (2012). On Decoding and Rewriting Genomes: A Psychoanalytical Reading of a Scientific Revolution. [REVIEW] Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 15 (3):337-346.
Hans Radder (2004). Exploiting Abstract Possibilities: A Critique of the Concept and Practice of Product Patenting. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (3):275-291.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #293,031 of 1,790,390 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #269,119 of 1,790,390 )
How can I increase my downloads?